Table of Contents
Munich Security Conference: Transatlantic unity tested by migration, defence and Russia
The Munich Security Conference this year pivoted around three uneasy truths: allies still want to stand together, domestic politics are pulling them in different directions, and the war in Ukraine remains the defining security challenge for Europe.
A tonesetting speech from the US secretary of state aimed to reassure European partners that Washington remains committed. Yet the same address also injected tension into the room by linking large-scale migration with potential destabilising effects — even using a phrase about “civilisational erasure” that alarmed some delegates and comforted others advocating tighter border controls. That exchange captured the conference’s central dilemma: how to preserve common security goals while answering divergent national politics and public anxieties.
Transatlantic solidarity, European responsibility
Throughout the forum, leaders repeatedly endorsed close defence coordination and urged Europe to shoulder more of the burden. But “shoulder more” meant different things to different capitals. Some speakers pushed for humane integration and expanded legal migration routes; others argued the emphasis must be on border control and faster returns. The debate signalled a broader shift: migration is no longer only a humanitarian or domestic policy issue — it has migrated into the realm of national security.
Calls for a stronger European defence posture were loud and frequent. France urged the creation of a resilient European security architecture, one that would make the continent a more reliable partner for the United States. The UK’s prime minister pressed for measures to defend shared values and reduce strategic dependencies, even floating a more integrated “European NATO” concept to boost deterrence. Germany’s chancellor acknowledged strains in transatlantic ties driven by cultural and political differences, and appealed for trust‑building alongside continued defence cooperation.
There was a shared, practical agenda: align procurement, expand joint exercises and deepen intelligence-sharing. Translating political promises into military capability, however, will demand tough choices about sovereignty, speed and who pays.
Russia, Ukraine and the need for durable capability
Russia’s aggression remained front and centre. Delegates warned that enduring deterrence will require more than episodic arms shipments — it must rest on institutional and industrial change. Many argued for “coalitions of the willing” to pilot procurement projects and bypass the slow consensus processes that bog down larger bodies. Proponents say smaller groups can move faster; critics warn such fragmentation could harm interoperability and alliance cohesion.
Debates boiled down to three practical pathways: harmonise technical standards, pool acquisition budgets for critical platforms, and create joint sustainment hubs to shore up supply chains. Each option trades off speed against national control and shared burden. Across the room, one theme recurred: policymakers want capability permanence, not just ad hoc responses. Concrete proposals included mapping critical industrial nodes, piloting joint procurement rounds and setting measurable delivery milestones to ensure promises become equipment in the field.
Coordination, friction and the reality of long-term planning
Even as more than thirty partners coordinated sanctions and aid packages for Ukraine, differences emerged over strategy and timing. Some governments pressed immediate, pragmatic defence-industrial consolidation; others sought political arrangements to share the long-term risks of supporting Kyiv. Uncertainty about Moscow’s willingness to negotiate coloured both public messaging and private contingency planning.
That uncertainty also highlighted persistent readiness gaps in Europe. Officials warned that while Russia has suffered setbacks and sanctions, it still invests heavily in defence and continues to deploy hybrid tactics alongside conventional forces. The result: a security environment that calls for coordinated procurement, resilient supply chains and visible milestones to measure progress.
Beyond Europe: China, Iran and a wider diplomatic balancing act
The Munich Security Conference this year pivoted around three uneasy truths: allies still want to stand together, domestic politics are pulling them in different directions, and the war in Ukraine remains the defining security challenge for Europe.0
The Munich Security Conference this year pivoted around three uneasy truths: allies still want to stand together, domestic politics are pulling them in different directions, and the war in Ukraine remains the defining security challenge for Europe.1
Political flashpoints and the test of alliance cohesion
The Munich Security Conference this year pivoted around three uneasy truths: allies still want to stand together, domestic politics are pulling them in different directions, and the war in Ukraine remains the defining security challenge for Europe.2
The Munich Security Conference this year pivoted around three uneasy truths: allies still want to stand together, domestic politics are pulling them in different directions, and the war in Ukraine remains the defining security challenge for Europe.3